Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Proposes Centralized Internet Surveillance
Mr.Intel writes "The Times is reporting that President Bush is 'planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users.' The recommendation is part of a report entitled 'The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'. It is due to be published early next year."
I think this sounds like a great idea. Sincerely, Satan
Well.. I'd write something critical of the plan here ... BUT THEY MIGHT BE LISTENING!
I am not a US citizen. If they are monitoring everything on the net, how would they know that I am British and not American. If they do build up a profile of foreign populations, does this classify as espionage?
In my case, Blair sucks up to bush anyway, but what if I was chinese or something?
And.. it is going to be a huge amount of data... realtime monitoring of all peer2peer traffic etc.. Sounds like they need a big budget =)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
"The international and unregulated nature of the internet has, up until now, enabled communication that was completely untappable. This should do more for solving that problem, at least for law enforcement authorities (no hackers tracking my traffic please ;) ), giving criminals and terrorists alike nowhere to hide. I for one welcome these measures, as I don't wish to see another 9/11, and presumably neither do the rest of you."
You have to be trolling. Oh well, in answer to that...
1) Centralised data means a single point of attack.
2) Trust your government, do you? Even after Iran Contra?
3) I don't notice anyone saying that they've gotten any useful intelligence from emails _before_ a crime has been committed.
OD
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
This Wired article notes that states are rapidly passing legislation that locally prohibits much of the federal gov't activities outlined in the Patriot Act.
We have found the enemy and he is us. - Pogo
REUTERS -- The Internet is planning to propose requiring the Bush administration to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the White House, and, potentially, surveillance of its cabinet.
The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure the Bush Administration," set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the theft of the 2000 election.
-- Hey, turnabout's fair play!
The RIAA, and MPAA will want to "watch" the internet through this network and nab any Tom dick and Harry who pass music files.
Of course, independant music won't be distinguished in order to make thier stats look better "43 trillion music files were traded last year, and our revenue only increased by 2 billion. If we make each of those users pay every time they trade a file, we could make gazillion's (to quote jk) more. Of course we'd give 1 million to the governemnt for letting us use their network for our own commercial gain.
Folks, the internet is dying because it became the true meaning of free speech, communication and information. Corporations are slowly killing the net, which requires Goverments to get their hands in on regulating things.
I don't use the net as much as I did because of all the popups, spam and corporate cluelessness.
If anyone knows of a protected Sub-net (encrypted, anonymous use) please let me know to restore my faith.
Thank you.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Just read alt.terrorists.currentplans and that will keep you up to date. Do NOT get it confused with alt.binaries.terrorists.erotica or you will be really sorry.
You Americanos scare me sometimes. No, I don't want to see more terror attacks, but isn't this the kind of stuff you hated the Soviet states for? Spying on people can be used easiely for controling people and because it can, it will.
Quod in aeternum cubet mortuum non est,
Et saeculis miris actis etiam Mors perierit
This is looking at the whole Internet.
Well, the Volkssicherheitsministerium will have a hard time to peek into, e.g. European research networks. It's unlikely that they would export flow data (or something else) to the U.S.
What monitoring everyone all the time does is make everyone a suspect, thus in the eyes of law enforcement a criminal. Everyone's Internet usage is automatically monitored regardless of probable cause. Blanket surveillance regardless of guilt or cause is the foundation for the police state that Bush, Ashcroft, Poindexter, etal. wish so desperately to establish.
STOP ROCK VIDEO
How is Internet or any TCP comnmunication different than a real phone, or a letter ? As far as I can tell to watch over and tap your phone or letter authroity need a special judge writing. So why suddenly Internet which is only another form of communication , is soooo different that it need to be surveyed in real time ?
Second, any terrorist communicating message not encrypted over, hidden in picture or other data, or using a code word system is already a dead or arrested terrorist. How THIS system is supposed to rpeevtn another 9/11 when the FAILURE of theuautorithy was to INTERPRET THE DATA and NOT get the data ?
Call me a paranoid , but if you control the communication between people, you control the people too. It looks more like population control than terrorism fight.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's kind of sad.
Bush administration makes alot of noise that they're doing something serious to deal with Internet Security, and *gasp* all they're up to is just cajoling private industry to get their act together. The slackers!
A half year goes by, and again, more noise. This time they're doing something real -- central monitoring, accountability, mandatory support for legal interception, and *gasp* all they're up to is stealing control of private property to further their own nefarious goals. The nazis!
I'm not sure what people want. I'm not sure what I want. The only thing I am sure of is we'll not be happy with whatever we get.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
No no, AOL centralises all the spam on the internet.
Even if only American sites are to be included, I think you will find that a substantial number of the webpages you visit happen to be American.
At the very least you will have to go look for new websites to browse, but for some people who use American websites for research purposes or some other practical means may be concerned by this.
I wonder if soon we will have to register and "clear Customs" before "crossing the border" into American cyberspace. We Canadians might one day find that accessing the virtual US gets harder than physically crossing the border!
It's really disgusting how the US governement is abusing the 9/11 attacks to take away the rights of the US citizens. The victims must be spinning in their graves.
Benjamin Franklin actually said it best:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Honestly, does anyone believe that the Feds could actually get through all the data? Sure natural language processing could analyze some of the data, but all of it? And really, do we believe that terrorists really so stupid as to put "Attack this Thusday at Place X--Bring Explosives" in their subject lines?
Apart from the practical nature of the collecting and analyzing data, are we just a little too nutty about wanting to feel safe? Homeland Security, watching our neighbors, analyzing what sites I surf, will that really keep terrorists out of the US? Is this all just a bunch of fear motivated policies that will keep us placated while we go about our day, at least until the next event.
Sure we need to be prepared and all, but at least lets demand a little intelligence and thought.
My little rant.
I run a small website for news and discusion. Last month I had 15,000 visits and served up over 500,000 pages.
How many visits does slashdot get? How many page views? Ebay? MSNBC? Weatherchannel? Tom's Hardware?
Does anyone here actually understand the magnitude of pages, sites, and information that they are proposing on watching and filtering?
The number is mind boggling.
We have folks comparing this to another step twords 1984. In readiong their comments, I wonder if they've even read the book?
All this "surveillance" of the web will accomplish is a useless oversized database with statistics that will take people years to get a grasp on. It'll be a case of "too much information" that won't be easily collated - and hence , pretty useless.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I STRONGLY suggest people read The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose between Privacy and Freedom? before drawing conclusions about surveillance technologies
Here's the publisher's blurb:
The Transparent Society
Will Technology Force Us To Choose Between Privacy And Freedom?
In New York and Baltimore, police cameras scan public areas twenty-four hours a day. Huge commercial databases track you finances and sell that information to anyone willing to pay. Host sites on the World Wide Web record every page you view, and "smart" toll roads know where you drive. Every day, new technology nibbles at our privacy.Does that make you nervous?
David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability.The Transparent Society is a call for "reciprocal transparency." If police cameras watch us, shouldn't we be able to watch police stations? If credit bureaus sell our data, shouldn't we know who buys it?
Rather than cling to an illusion of anonymity-a historical anomaly, given our origins in close-knit villages-we should focus on guarding the most important forms of privacy and preserving mutual accountability. The biggest threat to our freedom, Brin warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people, now by too many.A society of glass houses may seem too fragile. Fearing technology-aided crime, governments seek to restrict online anonymity; fearing technology-aided tyranny, citizens call for encrypting all data.
Brins shows how, contrary to both approaches, windows offer us much better protection than walls; after all, the strongest deterrent against snooping has always been the fear of being spotted. Furthermore, Brin argues, Western culture now encourages eccentricity-we're programmed to rebel! That gives our society a natural protection against error and wrong-doing, like a body's immune system. But "social T-cells" need openness to spot trouble and get the word out.
The Transparent Society is full of such provocative and far-reaching analysis.The inescapable rush of technology is forcing us to make new choices about how we want to live. This daring book reminds us that an open society is more robust and flexible than one where secrecy reigns. In an era of gnat-sized cameras, universal databases, and clothes-penetrating radar, it will be more vital than ever for us to be able to watch the watchers. With reciprocal transparency we can detect dangers early and expose wrong-doers. We can gauge the credibility of pundits and politicians. We can share technological advances and news. But all of these benefits depend on the free, two-way flow of information.
In The Transparent Society, award-winning author David Brin details the startling argument that privacy, far from being a right, hampers the real foundation of a civil society: accountability. Using examples as disparate as security cameras in Scotland and Gay Pride events in Tucson, Brin shows that openness is far more liberating than secrecy and advocates for a society in which everyone (not just the government and not just the rich) could look over everyone else's shoulders.
The biggest threat to our society, he warns, is that surveillance technology will be used by too few people not by too many.
David Brin has a Ph.D. in physics, but is best known for his science fiction. His books include the New York Times bestseller The Uplift War, Hugo Award-winner Startide Rising, and The Postman. He lives in Encinitas, California.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
I don't think they could. Sure, they can tell in hinsight that they detected communication that indicated something was going on. But, realizing beforehand what is significant and what is not, not even 100000 trained monkeys could do that.
The problem is "too much information". The problem isn't getting the information, the problem is realizing what is important and what is not. Of course, going big-brother is going to help sooo much on the information overload... :-P
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
After all, nothing assures freedom like constant, unchecked surveillance.
As far as I can tell to watch over and tap your phone or letter authroity need a special judge writing.
Although this isn't really an English sentence, I'll respond. You missed it. Several laws have been enacted in the past few months so that law enforcement people don't even need a warrant (aka: "special judge writing"). They can already listen to/watch anything we say/do without any kind of warrant or even reason. Orwell's 1984 arrived several months ago, they're just tidying up the details now.
Suck me off and swallow, Ashcroft.
no, no it wont. That's why you combine it with PGP or other favorite encryption tool. It seems Bush knows I transferred a 640MB enmcrypted file last night. It must be an .iso, pirate!
NSA spends lots of money decrypting it to reveal a looping video of me laughing at them, telling in Soviet Russia jokes, and http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com about 10 times.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I've skimmed the entire proposal document and read the first third completely (killing a small forest by printing out the pdf document).
I'm not going to cite details as I don't currently have the block of paper in front of me.
However, I do feel I have to comment. This document is based in fear, not hope. It is not a workable proposition in the United States of America, but would have been very well accepted in the former East Germany or in almost any coldwar eastern block nation.
Under the proposals all persons accessing information or making transactions electronically, or having transactions made for them, would be monitored, recorded and archived at all times for later retrieval under unstated conditions, by unstated persons, for vague purposes of security.
Stalin would have loved it.
The next step beyond this would be to outlaw any and all transactions that were deliberately masked to try and hide from the evesdroppers the origin, content, or time of the communication, because if you feel the need to hide, you must have something to hide, and you are assumed to be a criminal.
I can't speak for everyone, but I do know that I felt safer on September 12th 2001 than I will on September 12th 2005 if all this continues.
The article notes that such a plan would require Congressional and regulatory approval.
So with this on our radar, privacy advocates and reasonable-minded citizens can practice good ol' democracy, and stop this thing in its tracks.
It's worked before (c.f. Clipper Chip), and can work again.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
I'm going to start e-mailing naked pictures of my ugly ass to known terrorists. Cruel and unusual? Maybe. But,
1. Terrorists deserve the torture
2. So does any asshat listening in
If I were genuinely concerned about being watched, this is what I'd do:
/dev/random, all of which would be sent to random IPs and ports, especially to nations that are considered hostile to the US.
The best way to prevent surveillance from interfering with your life is to make it useless information. One way to do this is by creating more noise data, which makes the signal data harder to retrieve.
There is one really easy way to do this with the Internet particularly, and that is to create an application, which can be run voluntarily or propogated the same way Nimda and Melissa were. That running application would then spread random false alarms at such a high rate that nobody can keep up with them, thereby throwing the profile of a terrorist way off. This junk data can be trigger phrases from a dictionary, or it can just be faked PGP encrypted data from
If you wanted to take that a step further and screw with Echelon, you could create a virus that gained control of various corporations' PBX servers, then randomly dial numbers in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Everytime a connection is made, you could have an audio file play various trigger phrases, thereby adding noise to that medium.
In the real world, the solution is to make yourself appear as a terrorist even if you're not. Check out "How to Build a Nuclear Weapon" and the Koran from your local library. Use your credit card to buy dual-use products that you need. If everyone is suspicious, then the data is useless.
Now, the problem is, that I, as Joe American, can think of this, which means that the real terrorists can certainly think of even more effective ways to cripple surveillance tools. The sad part is that the government agencies still think that they are able to find a signal in complete white noise. The only people that are going to be effectively watched are the ones that don't need to be.
If I were genuinely concerned about being watched, this is what I'd do:
/dev/random, all of which would be sent to random IPs and ports, especially to nations that are considered hostile to the US.
The best way to prevent surveillance from interfering with your life is to make it useless information. One way to do this is by creating more noise data, which makes the signal data harder to retrieve.
There is one really easy way to do this with the Internet particularly, and that is to create an application, which can be run voluntarily or
propogated the same way Nimda and Melissa were. That running application would then spread random false alarms at such a high rate that nobody can
keep up with them, thereby throwing the profile of a terrorist way off. This junk data can be trigger phrases from a dictionary, or it can just be faked PGP encrypted data from
If you wanted to take that a step further and screw with Echelon, you could create a virus that gained control of various corporations' PBX
servers, then randomly dial numbers in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Everytime a connection is made, you could have an audio file play various
trigger phrases, thereby adding noise to that medium.
In the real world, the solution is to make yourself appear as a terrorist even if you're not. Check out "How to Build a Nuclear Weapon" and the
Koran from your local library. Use your credit card to buy dual-use products that you need. If everyone is suspicious, then the data
is useless.
Now, the problem is, that I, as Joe American, can think of this, which means that the real terrorists can certainly think of even more effective ways to cripple surveillance tools. The sad part is that the government agencies still think that they are able to find a signal in complete white noise. The only people that are going to be effectively watched are the ones that don't need to be.
I think it took me a total of about 8 seconds to think of a workaround to network data gathering.
Find an aspiring country that doesn't give a shit about President Bush beating his chest wanting data and set up a VPN tunnel through their network.
Problem solved.
It seems to me it is our responsibility as those in the know to inform those not in the know that stupid ideas like this are just that and nothing more.
We did it with Circuit City and DivX. We can do it again.
I voted for Al Gore. Thank you, that is all. :)
As for G. W., I doubt that he's going to get voted in during the 2004 elections, since it's doubtless by now that he's going to have half the country nuked by screwing with Iraq.
And now, for the story... this man has been using the Terrorist Protection trademark to invade our privacy, step on our constitutional rights. And he still didn't catch bin Laden.
The real problem is one-sided transparency: if the government has all the knowledge, the government is all powerful: it can use its knowledge for blackmail, for constructing "secret evidence" to be used in trials, etc., and ordinary citizens have no way of fighting that.
Take speed traps as an example. As long as the police does not release detailed information on who gets caught where and when, you can argue until you are blue in the face in front of a judge--if a policeman stands up and says you speeded, you will get convicted. If, on the other hand, all related data is available, you might well be able to prove that the policeman didn't calibrate the radar gun, that they are engaging in selective enforcement, that the speed limit at that location is deliberately too low, that the location is being used for "revenue enhancement", etc.
The Bush administration is one of the most secretive governments we have had in a long time. People like Poindexter don't want transparency, they want a large differential in the amount of information available to the government and corporations vs. the amount of information available to individuals. And they want that as a means of control.
The Times is printed in London. It's not called the London Times. It's not called the City Times. It's just called the Times. Now the New York Times may be referred to as the Times by some Americans, more cosmopolitan Americans and world wide slashdotters recognise it as NY Times, NYTimes or The New York Times.
There was an artist last week who spread 28 large black boxes painted with the word FEAR around Grand Central Station in New York. It shut down the terminal for 5 hours.
Bush et. al don't know what to do. The idea that disenfranchised individuals from a foreign nation might sacrifice themselves and find some domestic support for their cause has him baffled. Like anybody else when he is scared, he is doing anything he can think of, no matter how useless.
Homeland security seemed draconiun, redundant, but understandable considering what the Army/Navy/AF/Marines have been doing over the past few years. Then unlimited detention without arrest, INS prisions, refusing entry for stage performers, a dangerous smallpox vaccination program, a symbolic war with IRAQ, threats against North Korea...
Bush is scared, and helpless. He knows that the information was available to law enforcement before the attack, but he doesn't have enough finesse to understand that processing information is harder than gathering it. So, by the "Bigger is Better" American mentality, he is trying to fix America's intelligence agency by gathering tremendous amounts of basically irrelevant data. Not that this president sees the elegance of checks and balances: let's be honest, if he could get away with Ashcroft declaring him emperor, he would have done it a long time ago. But all that information and power will at some point be used wrongly. Not that it will be abused, but it will be used wrongly. History has proven that.
It's funny, but if the terrorists were attempting to shread American values and traditions, thus making it an unliveable country and reducing it's power on a world stage, then they have succeeded. And by not reappearing and therefore presenting an elusive target, the service their cause even further.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
-C
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
Well, the FBI already has such a monitoring system in place with ISPs called Carnivore. They must secure permission from a judge to use the system to track specific individuals. This is how it should work. My concern would be that the current administration wants broad powers to spy on anyone they want, without judicial oversight. That would be truly Orwellian. IIRC, the USA PATRIOT Act already loosened up some of these restrictions, especially where it involves foreign nationals. How much more power do they want or need? How much more monitoring is reasonable for citizens in an allegedly "free" society to tolerate?
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Since everything you write and create is copyrighed and since they'll have to outlaw encryption on transmissions across the Internet, they will have to make it illegal to encrypt copyrighted material. Should make the DMCA !circumvention provisions pretty moot WRT Internet downloads....
(OK I know they'll set it up so the "little people" get fucked while "trusted" big businesses can do whatever they want, but at least I tried to present what is IMO the logical outcome of this...)
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Fortunately when you live in the day where Bob Barr supports the ACLU, I don't think this'll get off the ground (or if it does, it'll be crippled or shot down shortly after).
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Ok, - get me a webcam, and I'll show Bush a part of Canada he's never seen before! :-)
Aren't we jumping a bit far to assume this needs to monitor data?
When I read the article, I see this as the ISPs being required to ping around their network, and then send those ping results back to governement servers in real time. This would be a burdensome hassle for the ISPs, but it wouldn't be any data that would compromise user privacy.
And this data could be very effective... if Google can't be pinged, it's the first alert of a DOS attack on a vital piece of 'net infrastructure. If all of Los Angeles goes dark, this would be first notificaition that something's gone very wrong...
Yes, and the proof-of-concept for centralized internet monitoring is already underway in China. The Bush administratio has only to follow their lead, an we too will be on track to be as free as China one day!
Besides, it would be against the Canadian Constitution's provisions on privacy and security of the person. Any citizen could then sue their ISP and require that all packets not specifically bound for the US not be routed through an American-monitored node.
Third point - this will just spur people to use encryption and/or anonymizers.
Last point - As a matter of sovereignty, other governments may then decide that all packets passing outside their borders be encrypted by the local ISP.
The Civil War Reconstruction collapsed promptly, along with the federal military presence and really any effort to change conditions in the South. Segregatikon, Jim Crow, sharecropping, and so on followed propmtly and the federal gov't could not for decades develop consensus for even a federal anti-lynching law. States rights was the rejoinder
But the civil rights movement did (mostly) clobber "states rights" to defy federal authority. This was the last defense of so-called nullification. Remember President Eisenhower sending in paratroopers to integrate Little Rock High School? Ike was not too jazzed about integration, but he was certain what he thought of defiance of the national government and courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in multiple forms down to a local joint called Ollie's Barbeque, which lost its appeal to the Supreme Court. What was new was the Supreme Court's recognition of broad federal powers under the 14th A. and the Commerce Clause, which it never would have done before th New Deal.
The question here is whether states can impede legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement. The answer is (now) no. They have significance via the 10th A., and certain federal efforts to regulate have been deemed too intrusive, but the states are in no position to impose a stricter version of the 4th A. than the federal constitution already has.
The obvious problem with authority is that it be easily used or abused. That's why we have democratic control of our gov't. The question to ask is, who arounbd you does support this sort of national surveillance of "other people" on the off chance it might avert another 9/11? I think there are quite a few. I'm sympathetic, too, except I don't think many realize how impractical, expensive, and damaging this could be, like certain other national defense measures we're looking at....
Al Qaeda released a statement that they would be hiding all future communiques in spam, hoping after the 10,000,000th copy of "Enlarge Your Penis By 8 Inches!" spam, that anyone watching would inevitably lose interest.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Whatever will the terrorists
do?
Seriously though, the advent of projects like Freenet makes this legislation a complete farce. ANY subversive and violent organization who wants to communicate securely and confidentially over the Internet can do so, in a myriad number of ways, with a little bit of research, and have a fairly high chance of escaping detection by a Carnivore-type system.
There's only two possible explanations for this bill: 1) Ignorance on the part of those drafting the legislation, and 2) Terrorism being used as a pretext to clamp down on other criminal activity that would otherwise be difficult to investigate and prosecute, due to Fourth Amendment restrictions.
I don't know which explanation worries and frightens me more.
Even so it is important to think of the level in the administration that this type of proposal comes from. This looks to me like something that the spooks have had on their shopping list for years and are simply putting it on the agenda now they smell that the administration will let them.
The news on Haliburton this morning makes this the first administration ever in which the President and Vice President were invesigated by the SEC for stock frauds. As if having the first President with a criminal conviction was not enough! It also means that there will be even more strenuous efforts to change the subject to Iraq, even if that means starting a war.
One thing to get really worried about is the lengths that the spooks may go to get their way. Peter Wright's autobigography 'Spycatcher' describes some of the dirty tricks that MI5 used against Harold Wilson's government. Given the character of the people in charge you have to wonder what additional information the spooks might have that they could use as leverage to get their way. After all this is what J. Edgar Hoover did and his name is still on the FBI HQ.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Where does it all end? Do I get accused of being a terrorist because I believe that George W. Bush and his administration are a bunch of fascist criminals who are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights -- and dare to publish said information? Am I "encouraging terrorism" and thus a "person of interest" for saying such?!
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Doors often impede surveillance. Terrorists and criminals hide behind closed doors as they plot destruction, build bombs, sell drugs, plan murders. Think of how much safer you'll be after all of those irresponsible doors are removed, so that legitimate law enforcement can actively safeguard your freedoms without impediment.
The central thesis of 1984 was that people will abuse the power they have. Once technology was developed to monitor your thoughts, thoughts would be monitored and any thought that might detract loyalty from the government would be outlawed. The term was thoughtcrime and it was related to sexcrime. Any means to achieve this state, including bombing your own people would be used and perpetual warfare was required to motivate the people and waste their efforts. We are very much on the way here in the US.
First, examine thoughtcrime. We already have laws against thoughts such as "hate crime" laws which gauge the intent of the criminal rather than actions and harm done. The federal government has long forbiden any group recieving federal funds from donating to "hate" groups. That's disturbing on it's own but much more so in a society where more than 1 in 4 $ of GDP are federal spending. Symbols are being outlawed, words and phrases are not far behind. These new monitoring plans are extensions of police "profiling" efforts and Carnivore. Now, thanks to Patriot and USA Act, domestic spying including inflitration of religious organizations, is legal. Illegal activities are being encouraged, with the understanding that it will lead to evidence that CAN be legaly used, and that is the spirit of these new laws. Today, your thoughts will get you monitored and blacklisted which involves a real loss of privalidge. Soon, those thoughts might get you raided and jailed. As the machinery of thought monitoring improves, more thoughts will become illegal. This new survailence system WILL be targeted, and hence very useful. Everybit as useful as the random checks of indviduals by two way televisions of 1984. The could be watching, so you have to behave, forever.
Now examine what the government is willing to do to achieve the above violation or your rights and expansion of it's power. I have yet to see reasonable proof of exactly who was responsible for 9/11, and so have not put the CIA or Israeli secret police off my list. Ossama was trained and supplied by the CIA when the struggle was against the Soviets. Any institution that has gained since then is suspect. There is no end to the "war against terror" A war against individual criminals is not a war, it's a police action, but that will have to do for now. Soon enough, we can get ourselves into a shooting war. Orwell predicted that all the centers of culture would be wiped out in order to make the new perpetual oligarchical states. I hope the folks willing to trade a little freedom for a little security are not also willing to trade a little prosperity for a little order.
And that is enough duckspeak for me today. File it, it will come in handy when The Book of rebelious thoughts is compiled to trap the disobedient. Oldthinkders unbellyfeel Ingsoc!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Screw reciprocity. I am 100% for surveiling those in government, although this will be more feasible for some than others.
Realistically, it will have to be 100% blanket surveillance of those we chose to be effective - every letter, fax, night vision the bedroom - the whole deal. Congressmen, and the President, for instance, will make many claims that this is outrageous, etc. but only one class of such complaints really moves me, which is that "matters of national security," etc. prevent the publishing of such surveillance. To this I propose spot reviews by n (5-15?) randomly selected members of opposition political partie(s) for asserting that a) no crime occurred, and b) making an embargo on the data for n years (5? 25?).
The accountability is long overdue, and they don't call it the public life for nothing. It sounds ridiculous at first, but it would work. It would drive a lot of the people you don't want out of politics virtually overnight. Public service in elected office (and I don't think just elected officials should be eligible for such a program) is a solemn duty with the heaviest responsibilities to the people. Both common logic and "reasonable suspicion" should compell us to take this step.
But I see no reason why this requires "reciprocity" for private citizens.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Oh, come on; the two-party system makes a mockery of the word "democracy". Your vote is worthless, the "lesser of two evils" is not a choice.
Besides, every election is won by the party that spent the most of their campain. This is extremely consistent over the years.
Which means that if/when this monitoring system is in place, it would be in the US government's "security" interest to try to make all traffic of interest go through US-controlled territory at some point.
Which, in turn, means that the US government would be very happy to see US-based multinational corporations gain control of all the main routing points worldwide, because those corps would already have the monitoring technology in place. Even though the monitoring laws should only require monitoring in US territory, what would prevent the US government from making secret deals with those companies to monitor non-US traffic, too? Only if the monitoring can be detected and revealed by third parties can we be sure that this is not happening.
In other words, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - unless there is a simple, reliable way for us peons to monitor the monitoring, the potential for abuse will only be restrained by the conscience of those using the monitoring. Not a good situation.
Read through the technical specs for CALEA wiretaps. There have been some recent, wierd changes. Wiretap data used to be delivered over leased T1 lines, which at least meant that it was going to some well-defined place. Recently, dial-out wiretapping capability has been added to Nortel and Lucent switches, allowing the delivery of wiretapped calls to any phone.
A little sideways to the topic, but see also http://www.librarian.net/technicality.html Perhaps ISPs could formulate and post similar "technically legal warning signs". Perhaps a calendar marking all the dates that the FBI did NOT inspect their network.
IMO, there is little difference between libraries and the internet at large -- both are essentially public information access, merely via a different medium. What happens to one, be that surveillance, censorship, or other restrictions, sooner or later will happen to the other.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
First I'll address the intenet monitoring.
YES IT CAN BE DONE!
The internet is a very dangerous tool of the people. The working classes.... Untill not the digital divide and kept most of the concerns of our and other governments out of or even off the internet. You see ideas are more powerful then gun, missles, plains and tanks. Collectivly we have power. Divided we have a mess of opposing ideas. I believe it was richard nixon that first coined the phrase "The silent majority". He used this as a justification for trying to keep his office of president. The idea was that... Sure everyone was shouting for his removal but there was a "Slient Majority" that wanted him to stay in office. History has shown that this "Majority" was only 35% of the population.
The Metaphor of War.
When I was 17 I joined the Army. I did this because it has been a family tradition that I thought was valuable experiance. I was a patriot joining to help defend our way of life and to attest my belief in the constitution of the united states. This country has been defended by 4 generations of Richardsons. When you join the Army you are asked to give a oath to uphold the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I'm not making this up. So why does the powers that be want to remove personal freedoms?
Does anyone remember when the War on Drugs was started against the American people? Well It never affected me. All the people in public housing that have to concent to searches going in and out of there homes. After all there was a "Majority" of people that believed in it right? The war on drugs is just a Metaphor! There is no real war going on except against the american people. All the shooting in south america and other drug producing countries are by rebels that actually might have a good reason to take up arms against their governments. I don't live there... I only know whats going on from what I read on the internet. Well years later we are still fighting the war on drugs. Low and behold searching people in public housing was not enough. We need roving check points on our borders. We need survalance of everyone. We go after people that in most cases are not even stronge enough to commit a violent crime. All in the name of keeping america safe from the drug crazed elements in our world. It's even created whole new types of corperations. Prison corperations that live off of a steady stream of bodies that need to be warehoused.
Does anyone remember the first Metaphor war in this country. Correct me if I'm wronge but I believe it was "The War on Poverty" started by the carter adminstation. I have a personal belief that this war was not sexy enough for the republicans. Because we seemed to drop that pretty fast when the poor started to be viewed as Crazed Crack addicts. Now if we as a nation were going to take up a impossible war this is the one we should be fighting. I don't think anyone can disagree with this. But we don't... We funnel in millions to law enforcement to fight drug use in the form of locking up the users. Ask a cop if he feels good sending a 18 year old to jail for having drugs. I've known A+ students that served 10 years for drug charges. What service did we get from that. A really scary person that could have been something grand. I don't want dealers on the street and I DON'T want drugs legal.
Which brings me to the War on Terrorism. Hey I'm all for protecting the country/world against bad guys. But let me ask this question.... If we stoped pouring resources into a failing drug war based on locking up the users. And instead turned to actually tighting up our borders couldn't we maybe get more truck, ships and planes searched for both drugs and weapons?
Where is all this leading? Your focusing on a battle not the war. Your focusing on the symptoms not the root cause. You watch your government take more and more away from you and you sit in your homes and pretend that you are so aware that it makes you a better person. Well did you vote? you did? did you get someone that did not vote to vote? Did you write your congressman to show disaproval of the fact that they signed the Patriot act after only reading a 3 or 4 page summary? I know that NO ONE was there to say "Hey you can't search these people just because they live in public housing". And I bet no one will be there to stop this landslide that is taking over the nation. We need to be vocal with this failing form of government. It's not a democratecy if only 40% of the population votes.
As a nation we need to find the root cause of this encrochment of our person rights and freedoms. I believe the root cause to be the lack of respect for the constitution by our government leaders. They will sit and tell you that for your safety we do these things.... They are lying! They do these things because the benefit the people that got them into office. The corperations and special interest groups. So when you whine about your posts to the everquest board shouldnt' be monitored your kidding you self. They can do what they want because even with the internet we are not ready to band together under the banner of freedom outlined in the constitution of the united states of america. So when they start replacing internet routers with computers that log ever packet. All to be gathered and processed by a government contractor that will be using your tax money to read your e-mail to mom. When the police get information on what pron movie you purchase with your credit card. When the army comes knocking on your door to recruit your 17 year old son because their records show that he can follow orders in his online games. Don't Panic. Because its all in the name of your protection.
"Silence means security, Silence means approval". --REM
P.S. spelling and grammer errors left in due to the fact that I really don't have the time to type this in the first place.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
Yes, I said "nineteen fifty four," and not "nineteen eighty four."
...and you've got it about right.
The phrase of the day is "chilling effect," brought to you by the letters H, U, A, and C.
Or isn't anyone else thinking that TIA (and friends) is a little closer to the HUAC than Orwell's book? Just alias "Commies" to "terrorists," and it works just fine.
I mean this new plot is like, well, imagine -- naah, hold on, I have to say it -- imagine a Beowulf Cluster of Joe McCarthys...
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.